I disagree with several things you have said here. #1 I would...

I disagree with several things you have said here. #1 I would certainly go with anything that Rudy Tanzi and Colin Masters says about characterizing the response seen in the placebo group as a "fluke" rather than what you purport here. That's rubbish that the placebo group was always meant to improve - especially not the77% ApoE4 population that was selected for the trial. They should not have improved over the course of the trial. I specifically hear PBT people talk about the unprecedented response of the placebo group. Go back and listen the Imagine cc. Obvious bashing attempt on your part. CLM said so himself too that the SUVR baseline numbers averaged around 2.5 when the target was 1.7.

As far as the treatment group, they did see a statistical improvement over the trial esp when you compare the results to known other trials like the AIBL longitudinal group which is a model of how the placebo SHOULD have reacted.

The only thing I agree with is the n=40 is less than ideal. That's it. The trial wasn't powered to overcome unprecedented placebo response.